When Policy meets Human Misery

Policy, a human creation, is meant to ‘police’ the day to day transactions that we all make with each other and with the institutions we all interact with.  Policy is not a tangible thing that would ever be recorded as an asset, with the exception that you can touch the paper that is mean to communicate a policy to the end reader.  

 We are all conditioned to accept the authority of policy, over the personal whims of others that might restrict our ability to transact with others so that we could fulfill our needs.  We naively believe that policy must have been properly developed, consequences understood, properly consulted and tested against the values that underline its existence in the first place.  Policy is a form of governance, or to another mindset a form of control.  Policy impacts us all in ways that we cannot imagine like an invisible force.

Good policy requires engagement, understanding, ongoing dialogue, ongoing adaptable learning, transparency, and clear purpose.  With most intangible things however most don’t get it, or fully appreciate the individual benefits or curse that it bestows on us all.

Bad policies can kill, most of the time indirectly and without intent.  The policy regime around H1N1 is a great example.

Policy cannot replace good judgment, although at times it is an excuse of stop thinking even in the face of consequences that the policy was never met to induce.  Policy can often be many times removed from the transactions between persons, but nonetheless still influence that transaction in ways that are hardly perceptible.

The public can find misplaced comfort to know if there is a policy to prevent a tragedy, but policy without good sound judgment is depressingly empty.

As I think of the young Wourms family from Airdrie, all now gone in an apparent murder-suicide, even in the face of the father’s psychiatric evaluation the month before,  one has to ask the question could anything have anything been done to prevent this senseless tragedy?  Where policies followed?  Were policies even capable of being followed? Were policies enough?  How did good sound judgment play a role or not in the decision making along the way?  What about other policies twice removed from this situation?  The policies around expectations to work in the face of mental illness?  The policies around the design of our communities where some cannot renew their spirit?  How about the policies around what services communities get allocated? How about the policies around privacy and individual rights where people’s needs are met only in an individual level, but not as members that interact in a family or community?

Policies are interconnected in ways that most don’t fully understand, but the consequences are experienced by real people. People may be responsible for their individual actions, but how those actions came to be, can and are influenced by the many invisible policies that we cannot always perceive.

Having a policy won’t save us, but having a good policy with due regard to it’s inter-connectivity, balanced by sound professional judgment, backed by a caring community is far better than misery.

A reply to Alvin Finkel of Alberta Democratic Renewal Project & ChangeAlberta.ca

About time that someone asked the “Now What” question as I suspect it’s on many people’s minds.  I too also found the differences between the traditional center-left parties minimal in overall substance.  The so called political spectrum limits the conversation as all parties have a blend of what could be considered left or right of center at any given moment causing the a degree of confusion around the choices the electorate makes around what party aligns most with their values.

What Alvin missed was that although there was little policy difference between the center-left parties there were lots of personal differences between the parties that are much wider. Until these personal differences gets resolved for the “greater good” the center-left agenda will suffer the same as the center-right that are said to be in a family feud.

Now look what we have, a conservative government with an even more conservative opposition, talk about a narrow conversation!

There was an argument made to me once that the creation of new parties was good for democracy because it offered more choice.  Thinking of the big picture I replied that the proliferation of choice was effectively no choice, if all it does is risk splitting the vote.

In marketing if you offer too much choice, people will choose--not to choose, or stick with what they know best.  Just walk into your favorite restaurant after they change the menu and add more choices, you will know what I mean.

What’s strange about the last Provincial election in large part was that it was about fear, not an overarching inspiring vision of what Alberta is, and can be.  This speaks to the fact that the electorate is likely more pragmatic that political parties don’t give proper credit for.  I am convinced however that Albertans want to rally behind a common vision that gives personal and corporate purpose and promotes the desire to stay in Alberta, not just make your money and run.

To get moving on this conversation may require breaking things down to much deeper level.  To assist consider watching Harvard University professor Michael Sandel and his talk “Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?” he has some interesting things to say about the debate regarding the role of government.

To Alvin and the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project thank you for your hard work.

The Problem with the Education Act was more profound than the fine print

There is something much more fundamental concerning what happened to the Alberta Education Act (Bill 2) when it went into legislative purgatory (sorry for the religious imagery, but I had to use it) on March 22.  

The Education Minister saw it himself when he first debated the bill early on. Lukaszuk in response to the Alberta Liberals who sarcastically stated that the government was going to pass it anyway, heard him say to the effect of “..I wouldn’t be so sure that it is going to pass.” and then the storm became more apparent after that.  I knew what was coming and was teasing the Education Minister on Twitter telling him that he is going to look like this after he finishes dealing with the Education Bill.

 

It seemed to me that the post mortem over the Education Act has been centered over the technical points of the Bill, when the problem is much more deeper than that. 

After 41 years of Conservative rule they have limited themselves to consulting a narrow band of Albertans, and have chosen to frame those that are not involved in the policy process as ‘satisfied’.  This was never more apparent during the 2008 election when Stelmach once strolled into a local Tim Hortons and deliberately avoided a group of nurses who were in their usual hospital garb.

Even after four years of ongoing consultation, and re-consultation, on something as substantial as the Education Act, the PCs can’t get it right.  This is because of the vacuum of real engagement with its own citizens. In any other province they enjoy the benefit of refreshing renewal of engagement as provincial parties are occasionally thrown out of office.

As I have written here the problem over the Education Act is not the fine print, but the profound disconnect between the government and its people, that leaves those of us that are not part of the power elite, disconnected, cynical, retreating to our own insular communities, whether they be religious, geographic, or other.

No wonder then, when the governing PC comes up with a piece of important legislation they are met with an onslaught of suspicion, misunderstanding, and general nastiness.

Alberta has shown to be a collections of communities that work well on their own, but few have the vision as to how to bring together these communities into something we call a Province.

40 is enough !